Summary here and here.

Reality does have its way of rudely intruding on the delusional sunny statements made by the woebegone G. Walker administration doesn’t it?

And sometimes from the most unexpected of mouths, too.

Former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw says the situation in Iraq is “dire” as a result of mistakes made by the US government.

Straw was in office during the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and was a firm supporter of Prime Minister Tony Blair’s decision to join the US-led operation.

“The current situation is dire,” Straw said Thursday during an appearance on British Broadcasting Corp. television.

“I think many mistakes were made after the military action - there is no question about it - by the United States administration. Why? Because they failed to follow the lead of Secretary (of State Colin) Powell. Article

So how’s that “freedom is on the march” meme going?

Under a broad new set of laws criminalizing speech that ridicules the government or its officials, some resurrected verbatim from Saddam Hussein’s penal code, roughly a dozen Iraqi journalists have been charged with offending public officials in the past year. Article

Meanwhile, back at the ‘homeland:’

A revolt is brewing among our retired Army and Marine generals. This rebellion–quiet and nonconfrontational, but remarkable nonetheless–comes not because their beloved forces are bearing the brunt of ground combat in Iraq but because the retirees see the US adventure in Mesopotamia as another Vietnam-like, strategically failed war, and they blame the errant, arrogant civilian leadership at the Pentagon. The dissenters include two generals who led combat troops in Iraq: Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack Jr., who commanded the 82nd Airborne Division, and Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who led the First Infantry Division (the “Big Red One”). These men recently sacrificed their careers by retiring and joining the public protest.

[snip]

I speak regularly to retired generals, former intelligence officers and former Pentagon officials and aides, all of whom remain close to their active-duty friends and protégés. These well-informed seniors tell me that whatever the original US objective was in Iraq, our understrength forces and flawed strategy have failed, and that we cannot repair this failure by remaining there indefinitely. Fundamental changes are needed, and senior officers are prepared to make them. According to my sources, some active-duty officers are working behind the scenes to end the war and are preparing for the inevitable US withdrawal. “The only question is whether a war serves the national interest,” declares a retired three-star general. “Iraq does not.”

[snip]

The dissenting retired generals are bent on making Iraq this nation’s last strategically failed war–that is, one doggedly waged by civilian officials largely to avoid personal accountability for their bad decisions. A failed war causes mounting human and other costs, damaging or entirely destroying the national interest it was supposed to serve.

[snip]

The senior military dissenters will not rest until they indict the mistakes of Rumsfeld and his principal civilian aides at Congressional hearings. The military always plays this game of accountability for keeps. Should the Democrats gain control of a Congressional chamber in the November midterms, televised Capitol Hill hearings in 2007 will feature military protagonists speaking of “betrayal” and “tragically wasted sacrifices.” The retired generals believe nothing would be gained, and much would be lost, by keeping the truth about Iraq from the families of America’s dead and wounded.

[snip]

The obvious diplomatic recourse is for the Bush Administration to talk to Tehran about our pending exit from Iraq, but the White House refused to do so until late September, when the Bush family’s longtime political fixer, former Secretary of State James Baker, entered the picture as a deal-maker. Baker is co-chair, with retired Indiana Democratic Representative Lee Hamilton, of the Congressionally created Iraq Study Group (ISG), which is due to issue a comprehensive report on US options in Iraq after the November elections. After a four-day visit to Iraq, Baker, Hamilton and the eight other members of the bipartisan task force returned to Washington with an obvious recommendation: Start talking to Tehran. After receiving President Bush’s immediate approval, Baker invited an unidentified “high representative” of the Iranian government, as well as Syria’s foreign minister, to meet with the ISG. Baker realizes the leverage is largely on Iran’s side of the table. Article

It was Saddam. No, the Baathists. No, foreign fighters. No, al-Zarqawi. Um, quick, remind us, who’s the bogeyman put up as the be-all and end-all this week?

Iraq’s two most deadly Shiite Muslim militias have killed thousands of Sunni Arabs since February, with the more experienced Badr Brigade often working in tandem with Al Mahdi army, collecting intelligence on targets and forming hit lists that Al Mahdi militia members carry out, a senior U.S. military official said Wednesday.

In some cases, death squads have been accompanied by a “clerical figure to basically run” an Islamic court to provide “the blessing for the conduct of the execution,” the official said.

[snip]

The official said U.S. investigators in Iraq have evidence that militiamen have acquired shoulder-fired rockets capable of shooting down aircraft, as well as Iranian-made explosives capable of puncturing armor plating. Article

Related:

The United States and Britain have in the past accused Iran of fostering violence in Iraq. The Islamic Republic denies it.

But the official gave far more detail, and said the latest weapons finds — including explosives bearing factory stamps indicating they come from Iran — show that the policy of arming Iraqi militia is supported at high levels in Iran and not the work of rogue Iranian operatives.

“You see them enabling all comers,” he said. “And by the way, nobody in this country stays bought. You’re rented.” Article

Could be reading in more than is there, but the sudden and focused emphasis and seeming willingness to provide some specificity smacks of psy-ops to exploit undeniable cracks in his sphere of control and internally portray al-Sadr as “anti-Iraqi.” If so, and keeping in mind that the shuttering of al-Sadr’s newspaper some time ago was what set off a fierce round of violence, including the street battles in Najaf (and the current fact of al-Sadr’s 30 seats in Parliament and hold of several ministries), this could be a v-e-r-y dicey tack that is quite capable of taking on a life of its own and swirling out of control.

Yuppers.

Short version: Iraq wasn’t a terrorist threat when we attacked it; it is now because we did attack and botched the job so badly that terrorists are dying to go there and learn how to kill Americans anywhere. So the world is safe from Saddam (who was never a threat) but more vulnerable to terrorism, which (back to the beginning) was on the ropes in the early days in Afghanistan. Article